http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/2009/10/25/how-current-reform-proposals-would-impact-colorado-premiums/ Research and discussion of the Colorado health insurance industry and the healthcare crisis in America. Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:34:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/2009/10/25/how-current-reform-proposals-would-impact-colorado-premiums/comment-page-1/#comment-14147 Louise Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:29:27 +0000 http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/?p=1385#comment-14147 Adam, It is in large part because the mandate language in the current reform bill is so weak that we could see such high premiums for young, healthy people. The more people who opt out and choose to pay the fine, the higher premiums will be for people who choose to be insured. Covering pre-existing conditions (which is an aspect of reform that Americans overwhelmingly favor) comes with a price. In order to offset the higher expenses, more people have to join the insurance pool. But if the fine for opting out is low, people will choose to pay the fine. And this perpetuates the problem. In the Wellpoint study, a full 50% of the premium increase for a young, healthy male, was attributed to the weak mandate language in the reform bill, in anticipation of people opting to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. If the fine were more in line with the premiums, the actual price of a policy would be significantly lower. You are correct about the fact that premiums from young, healthy policyholders help to subsidize the cost of care for older, and sicker people. But it would do us all well to keep in mind that one day (hopefully) we'll be old too. Adam,
It is in large part because the mandate language in the current reform bill is so weak that we could see such high premiums for young, healthy people. The more people who opt out and choose to pay the fine, the higher premiums will be for people who choose to be insured. Covering pre-existing conditions (which is an aspect of reform that Americans overwhelmingly favor) comes with a price. In order to offset the higher expenses, more people have to join the insurance pool. But if the fine for opting out is low, people will choose to pay the fine. And this perpetuates the problem.
In the Wellpoint study, a full 50% of the premium increase for a young, healthy male, was attributed to the weak mandate language in the reform bill, in anticipation of people opting to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. If the fine were more in line with the premiums, the actual price of a policy would be significantly lower.
You are correct about the fact that premiums from young, healthy policyholders help to subsidize the cost of care for older, and sicker people. But it would do us all well to keep in mind that one day (hopefully) we’ll be old too.

]]> http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/2009/10/25/how-current-reform-proposals-would-impact-colorado-premiums/comment-page-1/#comment-14146 Adam Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:49:48 +0000 http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/?p=1385#comment-14146 The problem with this mandate is that it will force the young and healthy to pay a wildly disproportionate share of the costs relative to what they use. The purpose of the mandate is to subsidize the old and sick. Rates for the young will skyrocket if the ratios between what the young and old pay are restricted. Males are even worse off, if gender neutral policies are forced. In addition, the mandate will be for overly bloated coverage that young people really don't need or want. I know I will opt out if the fine is low. I make too much for subsidies but too little to afford monthly premiums. I am trying to pay off $70,000 in student loans. If the fine is too high and I'm forced to buy in, I'll make it my goal to use as many healthcare resources as possible because I refuse to throw away large sums of money every month and get very little in return. The problem with this mandate is that it will force the young and healthy to pay a wildly disproportionate share of the costs relative to what they use. The purpose of the mandate is to subsidize the old and sick. Rates for the young will skyrocket if the ratios between what the young and old pay are restricted. Males are even worse off, if gender neutral policies are forced. In addition, the mandate will be for overly bloated coverage that young people really don’t need or want. I know I will opt out if the fine is low. I make too much for subsidies but too little to afford monthly premiums. I am trying to pay off $70,000 in student loans. If the fine is too high and I’m forced to buy in, I’ll make it my goal to use as many healthcare resources as possible because I refuse to throw away large sums of money every month and get very little in return.

]]>